Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A private message is fine but whatever you wish. I'm always interested in reasons why people make choices in regards to religion, God, Atheism etc.
You would do best to read all the posts (a bit boring though) and you would not come to that erroneous conclusion. I freely admit that creation by God is based on faith, but I'm having lots of trouble getting naturalists to also admit that they have faith in abiogenesis when there clearly is no evidence. Of course I can't produce any evidence that is satisfying to naturalists, but the point I'm making is that they have just as much and even more faith than I do. If abiogenesis is fact and not faith then produce the evidence, simple as that, but you can't because there isn't any.
I will make a list of general evidence for abiogenesis.
1. Free floating proteins form naturally in the environment, they still do it today, thi <snip>
A private message is fine but whatever you wish. I'm always interested in reasons why people make choices in regards to religion, God, Atheism etc.
[FONT="]Are you again talking about the simplest life form in existence today? Surely you're not, as we have just explained to you why that would be a misrepresentation of the sciences involved. [/FONT]
Observation. Try looking under a microscope.[FONT="][FONT="]Also, how do you measure complexity?[/FONT]
[FONT="]The way you just used the word "panspermia" exposed your ignorance on this topic. I'm not even gonna bother explaining your mistake. Clearly you are not interested in what I have to say anyway. Go look it up yourself instead.[/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]ben stein? "Expelled"? really?[/FONT][FONT="]Talk about exposed dishonest editing...[/FONT]
[FONT="]Of course the big IF, and if we locate the flying spaghetti monster, and if this and if that. Yes ifs, maybe, perhaps, possibly, could have, we think that, is all terminology frequently used by naturalists and evolutionists when they have no evidence to offer. Evolution books are filled with these type of words, especially the ones Dawkins writes. Trust me, scientists will never be able to produce life because only God is the author life, period.[FONT="]Now... if abiogenesis hypothesis is correct and if it gets solved tomorrow, then that would mean that science uncovered a chemical reaction that brings the building blocks of life together into a self-replicating molecule subject to darwinian processes and mechanism.[/FONT]
There is one major flaw in your reasoning. This “discovery” hasn’t happened. Do you understand that? Discover it first, and then we’ll examine it. Your faith that insults you is mind blowing![FONT="][FONT="]Please point out where the "magic" would be in such a discovery. Considering you just agreed that there's nothing magical about Chemistry.[/FONT]
Where is your evidence that this IS possible? Again, show me how non-life produces life then we’ll say it’s possible. A few little “possible” stepping stones just don’t cut it. Explain the process of how all the required elements produce life, and how they stay alive, which is slightly important don’t you think?[FONT="]So, where is your evidence that this is "impossible"? How did you conclude this? Surely, you are not just asserting it without anything to back it up, right?[/FONT]
If you do some basic research on life and "simple" cells it will become quiet obvious to you how ridiculously complex life is in comparison to non life in any form.
Where is your evidence that this IS possible? Again, show me how non-life produces life then well say its possible. A few little possible stepping stones just dont cut it. Explain the process of how all the required elements produce life, and how they stay alive, which is slightly important dont you think?
The Bible has a better explanation for Origins than Darwin. He was just trying to justify his rejection of religion.
What is the biblical explanation for speciation? "God did it"?With a thorough background in Science Fiction, I recognized that Darwin was writing fiction.
The Bible has a better explanation for Origins than Darwin.
What of all the Christians that accept the theory of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on our planet?He was just trying to justify his rejection of religion.
The simplest cells known to man is bacteria. Any cell that not alive is a dead cell. Dead cells which has all the "parts" naturally falls apart.The simplest "cells" that replicate are so simple they aren't considered alive. If the simplest "cell" being talked about is bacteria, that is an issue.
Before that question is answerable, you have to provide your dividing line between what is considered "life" and what is "non-life."
Just to illustrate the difficulty you're going to have, is a virus a living or non-living thing? If it's living, what makes it alive? If not, what does it lack that would make it living?
The simplest cells known to man is bacteria. Any cell that not alive is a die cell.
Fantastic, you say that its possible that abiogenesis could be proven wrong but unlikely. So then you must also admit that it is possible that you have been living by faith all this time. After all, if in time scientists show that abiogenesis could not have happened, but all that time you believe it, then all that time you have been living by faith. Of course I expect you to reject this but when people are blinded by ideology they cant see what is painfully obvious to the rest of us.[FONT="][FONT="]Sure. But I consider it very unlikely.[/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]It seems you don't really comprehend how science works either....
Fact = an observation, a piece of data
Hypothesis = a proposed explanation for a set of data in a certain scope
Theory = a "graduated" hypothesis [/FONT]
Creation is the natural order of things. Your classic German made BMWs and Mercedes, smartphones, houses, etc. Everything we use on a daily basis has been created by intelligence. We are far more complex than anything you can make or that humans have ever made, so of course its plausible that God created us. [FONT="][FONT="]Gods creating life is just as possible and plausible as undetectable 7-headed extra-dimensional dragons creating life.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Wow, I thought I had seen it all. It's a shame that you actually cant see how faulty your logic is but Ill gladly show you. Why don't you apply that same logic to abiogenesis and evolution? So to follow your faulty logic we can say this: for the event of evolution to start, abiogenesis is not a valid option. For the simple reason that abiogenesis must be shown to exist first, and as we know, evolution can't happen unless abiogenesis happens first. And because abiogenesis can't be shown to exist first or "do" things, then we must reject evolution. People like you never cease to amaze me when you demand God appear to prove himself, but never make the same demands of abiogenesis. You hypothesize, theorize and every other ize but you cannot show abiogenesis to exist first with a demonstration of how it may do things such as start life which is needed for evolution to get going. How sad to be so deluded.[FONT="]When talking about the actual event of life coming into being, gods are not a valid option. For the simple reason that gods must be shown to exist first. That which can't be shown to exist, can not be invoked to "do" things.[/FONT]
What you call evidence is purely speculation. Just because in your view there is no alternative does not mean that abiogenesis is viable. That point is completely irrelevant. The end goal of life MUST be attained or abiogenesis falls flat.[FONT="]Having said that, abiogenesis is currently our best bet. For the sheer fact that:
1. it has supportive evidence (again: it's not just the end goal of life, it's the road leading up to it as well - and that road has lots of evidence)
2. there is currently no viable alternative[/FONT]
Life (just like "love") has many different levels. I don't believe a "living" bacteria (or one individual cell in our body) is on the same level as a "living person".Do you mean dead?
Also, your definition of "alive" seems a touch hazy...
"IF" but I believe Life has always existed and is the ultimate reality (not the universe). Thus I don't believe in "the universe created life" religion but " Life created the universe" religion.Again... If at one point life does not exist and the next moment life does exist, then matter was somehow brought together into living systems by some process.
To deny this is .... I can't say it without being censored.
If you do some basic research on life and "simple" cells it will become quiet obvious to you how ridiculously complex life is in comparison to non life in any form.
Great! I'm very happy to say all I want. There is none more credulous than a naturalist who accepts abiogenesis as a fact when there is absolutely no evidence to support this.
Speaking of designed. Was the first life on earth designed or not designed?
Now, like all the others who are incapable because no evidence exists - if you have something to offer please produce the evidence to show me that non-life produces life.
This is not my ideology. It is simply a hypothesis at this point.How is your naturalist faith based ideology called, abiogenesis, scientific?
Show me the evidence and I will accept it.
Fantastic, now we are actually getting to the whole point of this. Actually, I'm not asking you to believe me at all.
I will freely admit that by Faith I believe that God created life on earth. I can't give any evidence that will be satisfying to but I have very strong and logical reasons for believing this. Those reasons are not important as it is a different subject altogether.
What is important is whether you will also confess that your belief in abiogenesis is a faith based belief system. Both of us have faith, it's just in something entirely different. You cannot provide evidence for abiogenesis so it remains a faith based belief system.
The simplest cells known to man is bacteria. Any cell that not alive is a dead cell. Dead cells which has all the "parts" naturally falls apart.
Right handed ones (for living things) do not connect except inside a living cell.
That's a dumb comparison since people still can have horse-pulled carriages today.
There are even dog sleds still around.
Frankencell only exist in man's imagination.
For something to be considered living then there must be certain compulsory elements Im sure youll agree or there is no life. So, lets say that the first living thing produced by abiogenesis is much simpler than the simplest life form we have now. Still, it has to be complex dont you agree?
Is there really such a thing as a simple life form? What would be the bare minimum of components needed to make the first living thing?
And please explain how the processes of these basic elements becoming life. What is required?
Observation. Try looking under a microscope.[FONT="]
Maybe you object to me saying popped out of Panspermia. I dont know why as Im not trying to define it or explain about the seeds or where they came from or the three main hypothesis of Panspermia. Thats just how I write when Im trying to get a brief point across quickly.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Yes really, but of course you must never let facts stand in the way of your ideology. We cant have that can we? [/FONT][FONT="]Whether you like Ben Stein or not is completely irrelevant, because its a fact that Dawkins did say that, period.
He even says something similar in the God Delusion that no-one knows how the first self-replicating molecule came about.
[FONT="]Also, like I said previously, Dawkins in the Ben Stein interview has no trouble accepting the possibility of an intelligent designer as long as that designer is NOT God!
and many like yourself have desperately tried to explain it away with rubbish trying to claim its out of context, dishonest editing etc.
Dawkins said it clearly and indisputably, period.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Of course the big IF,
Trust me, scientists will never be able to produce life because only God is the author life, period.
[/FONT]
There is one major flaw in your reasoning. This discovery hasnt happened.
[/FONT]
Where is your evidence that this IS possible?
Again, show me how non-life produces life then well say its possible. A few little possible stepping stones just dont cut it.
Fantastic, you say that its possible that abiogenesis could be proven wrong but unlikely. So then you must also admit that it is possible that you have been living by faith all this time
After all, if in time scientists show that abiogenesis could not have happened, but all that time you believe it,
Of course I expect you to reject this but when people are blinded by ideology
Of course I understand this but Im really glad that you mentioned it so that people who think like Dawkins can comprehend it.
Darwinian evolution has not been observed
yet despite this Dawkins on numerous occasions calls it a fact and he strongly emphasizes the point.
Your classic German made BMWs and Mercedes, smartphones, houses, etc. Everything we use on a daily basis has been created by intelligence.
We are far more complex than anything you can make or that humans have ever made
, so of course its plausible that God created us.
[FONT="]
Why don't you apply that same logic to abiogenesis and evolution?
for the event of evolution to start, abiogenesis is not a valid option
You hypothesize, theorize and every other ize but you cannot show abiogenesis to exist first with a demonstration of how it may do things
such as start life which is needed for evolution to get going
What you call evidence is purely speculation
Just because in your view there is no alternative
What could be more favorable than the conditions we have today?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?